What is Happening in the US? - page 2

Hi, I decided to start this post because I wanted our American cousins to understand that the division, and angst over the possible war in Iraq is not shared in almost every other country of the... Read More

  1. by   ayemmeff
    I don't usually respond to these discussions,but my God thats just SH*TE,Hardknox. The British and Australian governments are on your side. With an attitude like that no wonder a proportion of the world is not.
  2. by   Q.
    Ayemmeff:
    I think what HardKnox meant was this:
    Originally posted by RNCountry:

    Too many people expected this country to sit on our hands and not go after those that had murdered over 3000 people on our own soil. They not only attacked a civilian building, killing mothers and fathers, they killed children in airplanes and it seems to get forgotten they also attacked the Pentagon, the bastilion of our military. I found the spectucle of my President going to the UN on Sept 12 begging for help to be uncomfortable. Civilized countries should have been rushing to our aid to begin with.
  3. by   Stargazer
    I saw StuPer's first post this morning and didn't have time to respond. Now I wish I had, although I don't know if it would've made any difference.

    Stu, it is absolutely counterproductive to try to initiate any kind of rational discussion while using emotionally charged words like "warmonger" and "peacenik." These terms serve only to try to label people and have the unavoidable effect of immediately putting readers on the defensive, which means they're not going to be giving your argument fair consideration, only mentally composing a rebuttal while reading it.

    Normally I find a lot of merit in your posts, but you didn't do yourself or your argument any favors with this post. On my other BB, we've declared a moratorium on terms like "warmonger",
    "peacenik", "appeasenik", and so forth. I would like to suggest that we do so here as well.


    Oh, yeah, and a big fat WORD to ayemmeff.
  4. by   spot
    Consider what happened in the early 1950's during a certain "police action" on the Korean peninsula. That war ended essentially in a stalemate, much like the first Gulf War. I realize that the primary objective was acheived; evicting Saddam from Kuwait. But, the problem remained in power - Saddam Hussein. Much like the Korean War, the problem remained. Now, here we are 50 years later; North Korea has nuclear weapons. If Saddam is not stopped now, history will repeat itself. The United States is the leader of the free world today because we had the fortitude to "go it alone" on so many occasions yesterday.




    "The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." -- Winston Churchill
  5. by   Mimi Wheeze
    LOVED the link, Susy! :roll :roll

    You're most welcome, mkue! :spin:
  6. by   Stargazer
    Also wanted to add, Linda, that I am sorry and disappointed that anti-war demonstrations in your hometown were disruptive or problematic. On my other BB, folks went to protests Saturday ranging from Seattle, Chicago, New York City, London; Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Bunbury and Perth (Australia), Wellington (New Zealand), and Amsterdam. To a person, they reported that they were pleased and surprised at how well-behaved everyone was and how smoothly the event went; also reported that police were friendly and, in a number of cities, thanked many individual demonstrators they talked to for being well-organized and peaceful.
  7. by   Gomer
    I was one of the 100,000+ in San Francisco. Reminded me of the anti-Vietnam protests of 30 years ago (except I'm older, grayer, more wrinkled and need to wear a bra this time). Very peaceful, friendly, at times very sober as many of us thought of friends we lost in the last "American-Will-Save-the-World" fiasco. I never thought we would let our politicians take us down this path again.

    It is very sad that another "war for what?" is on the horizon.
  8. by   maureeno
    I am against name-calling on either side; sometimes, listening to the radio I replace the word 'liberal' or 'protestor' with the word 'Hutu' or 'Tsutsi' and I become very fearful. With so much fear and negativity around, it is vital anti-war demonstrators resist the temptation to label and practice peace in words and deeds.
  9. by   Hardknox
    Originally posted by Susy K
    Ayemmeff:
    I think what HardKnox meant was this:
    Originally posted by RNCountry:
    quote:Too many people expected this country to sit on our hands and not go after those that had murdered over 3000 people on our own soil. They not only attacked a civilian building, killing mothers and fathers, they killed children in airplanes and it seems to get forgotten they also attacked the Pentagon, the bastilion of our military. I found the spectucle of my President going to the UN on Sept 12 begging for help to be uncomfortable. Civilized countries should have been rushing to our aid to begin with.

    Thanks, Susy. That is exactly what I meant.
  10. by   maureeno
    Iraq was not behind the attacks of 09-11-01; the BushII administration does not assert this. The worry is SH will sell/give WMD to terrorists.
    This makes an attack on Iraq a pre-emptive war. BushII went to the UN because he wants to honor the UN Charter which prohibits the use of force that is not undertaken in response in self defense after the occurrence of an armed attack across an international boundary zone OR pursuant to a decision by the UN Security Council.
    BushII announced last June at West Point a new strategic doctrine of pre-emption: an idea the US has the right to use military force against any state that it sees as hostile or makes moves to acquire WMD. This abandons basic legal restraints. It is a doctrine without limits, and would create a dangerous precedent. It also raises world suspicions of US motives.
    After our country was attacked by OBL we had incredible levels of sympathy and support which we used up by not recognizing terrorism is a world problem which the world must solve together. BushII understands this and is working hard for UN support.
    Of course the US can go with its 'coallition of the willing', BushII could act on his new doctrine, but the cost would be very much higher in terms of future world stability. [higher too to the US Treasury]
    Even with a UN green light, war would bring dangers of destabilization to the region and the risk of the creation of even more enemies willing to use terror.
  11. by   Q.
    "Time is working for us. We have to buy some more time and the American-British coalition will disentegrate because of internal reasons and because of the pressure of public opinion in the American and British street."
    -Saddam Hussein in a November 2002 interview with the Egyptian weekly Al Usbou


    The Washington Post
  12. by   fergus51
    Oh, come on Susy, has SH been right about any of his other predictions (like "America will face the mother of all battles in the Gulf War, give up and go home")?LOL!!! He's just as wrong underestimating the US and its allies this time. The psychic network is better at it than he is.
  13. by   Q.
    You don't think his above prediction is true at all?

close